Open main menu

Wikidata β

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Close-out of statements formerly using P794

< Wikidata:Requests for comment
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Close-out of statements formerly using P794" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

The property no label (P794) (English label "as", known as a "generic qualifier"), was recently removed, after a year-long collaborative process of migration to less ambiguous properties, including several created for the purpose. Ultimately, every use was migrated, and the property was duly deleted with a clear consensus. However, there remains some question of whether a couple of use cases are now using the most appropriate properties. A discussion on this was underway here, but stalled due to being archived. I'd like to get those use cases wrapped up in a way that's satisfying to all.

@ArthurPSmith, Deryck_Chan, GZWDer, Jheald, Jura1, Pasleim: I'm pinging the people who've contributed already, but of course everyone is welcome to weigh in (though I'd ask you to skim the arguments given previously). This RfC is for dealing with these specific use cases, not for re-litigating decisively-closed matters or airing grievances. Swpb (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wondering why don't you also ping me (@Liuxinyu970226:) here, Swpb, as I'm also supported the deletion of that property. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Accidental oversight, I'm sorry. Swpb (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The options here, for qualifiers that take the following items as values, seem to be:

For acting (Q4676846) and interim (Q4895105):Edit

For de facto (Q712144) and de jure (Q132555):Edit

  1. sourcing circumstances (P1480) (on the theory that these items are very similar to the official (Q29509043) and non official (Q29509080) that this property already takes as values; if another property is chosen, I suggest these should come along.)
  2. criterion used (P1013)
  3. determination method (P459)

Swpb (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support 1. here on the argument given. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • criterion used (P1013) seems to be the best match from my point of view - the curators of sourcing circumstances (P1480) don't want to expand the scope and determination method (P459) is less of a good match because it isn't really a "method". Deryck Chan (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • To clarify:   Support criterion used (P1013);   Weak oppose determination method (P459);   Neutral sourcing circumstances (P1480). Deryck Chan (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Deryck Chan: I'm dubious that we need to give much deference to the self-appointed "curators" of sourcing circumstances (P1480). Local consensus must yield to global consensus – having a particular interest in a given property does not mean one's voice should automatically carry more weight. Also, how many "curators" are we talking about here? Can we invite them to comment on the rationale I gave here (i.e., that it's not an expansion of scope)? I'm only aware of one, albeit particularly vocal, "curator" who opposed the use, and he's already been pinged here. You put more work into deprecating no label (P794) than probably anyone else; how do you feel about the appropriateness of sourcing circumstances (P1480) for this role? Swpb (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @Swpb: Well, I can see a conceptual distinction between "accuracy of the source" and "accuracy of the statement". I'm fine with people wanting sourcing circumstances (P1480) to stay strictly in the "accuracy of the source" scope, e.g. "Bede was born circa 673" means that "There was an exact day on which Bede was born [accuracy of statement is much finer], but human knowledge only knows it is around 673 [accuracy of source is much coarser]". I don't feel strongly about what P1480 should represent; just pick one and we'll juggle the qualifier around to match it. Deryck Chan (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose first, per above;   Support third as it has more specific meaning than second in (at least) Japanese afaik,   Neutral on second. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Liuxinyu970226: Can you please expand on your oppose of #1 here? First, is "per above" supposed to refer to Deryck Chan's comment directly above this, or your own comment under the section before? Swpb (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: - You've been the most concerned about porting these statements away from sourcing circumstances (P1480). What's your preferred destination? Deryck Chan (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)